Cook v. Bonnet
CHARLES W. COOK and EDWARD JONES v. AUGUST BONNET
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William J. Murray, Jr. (author), Heydeneeldt
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Murray
Mr. Oh. J. Murray delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mr. J. Heydeneeldt concurred.
The 5th section of the Act of March 26th, 1851, entitled “An Act to provide for the disposition of certain property of the State of California,” which requires the City of San Francisco to deposit a map of the property so granted, in the office of the Secretary of State, correctly delineating said property by means of red lines, does not make such map conclusive evidence of the extent of said property.
The boundaries are completely specified in the Act, and the question, what was the water line of the city at the date of the Act, is one of fact, and is not concluded by the red line drawn by the surveyor.
Judgment affirmed.